Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you introduce an element into the discussion, you really should expect people to respond to it.
Copyrights and patents are separate things.
You may want to use just plain English. Your last statement does not make sense. Trying to use big words does not help you communicate your ideas.
If we in the U. S. do not want biologic systems and procedures to be protected by patents we have the option of changing the law. However, we need to be prepared for the reduction in innovation that might result if companies can never recover their research costs.
What? Monsanto is like a red cloth for you all? As soon as you see the code world "Monsanto", you stop reading, you don't pay no attention to the actual context and start elaborating on something that is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. Then you put all the blame on the guy who mentioned the code word "Monsanto" that caused you all to get excited and to spill over?
It takes two to make sense. You are incapable of making sense of "analogies" (google it), I can't teach you that. Monsanto is allowed to claim ownership of entire bio specie (Any specie) for N years just because it inserted a proprietary gene in it, the gene it didn't create from scratch to boot. Specie and gene ownership have no precedents in human history, the history that saw plenty of innovations and cost recovery. Monsanto tweaks common human heritage and declare it to be its property. Again, you didn't explain why I can't do something like that to Microsoft products or somebody else' home? I didn't give my permission for Monstanto to own corn specie it contaminated with another' specie genes. I don't understand who are "we" that allowed Monsanto to do that. I don't understand who are "we" that absolved Monsanto from any responsibility for their genes messing up species for good.
Absurd of gene and specie ownership opens big can of legal worms and dystopian possibilities. You understand very well that only Monsanto' discretion (not a law) that marks the limits of legal prosecution. And Monsanto is just a GMO pioneer, more are coming, more crops will be threatened.
Do you have any links to adverse effects from pesticide residues in food?
It's not a thesis. I believe that message board format allows me to make common knowledge (easy to look up) statements without providing extensive literature reviews. If you don't want to invest 1 second it takes to copy paste "adverse effects from pesticide residues in food" in the search line it shows that you made your mind regardless of the links. If you think that pesticide etc. residues are good for you, you are in luck, there are thousands of choices to select from, bon appetit.
Here what Hong Kong comrades have to say on the matter: 6. Would my health be affected if I consume food containing excessive pesticide residues?
The adverse effects of pesticide residues depend on the nature of the pesticide, as well as the amount and duration of exposure. Eating food with excessive pesticide residues may cause acute and/or chronic adverse health effects. Symptoms of acute poisoning include vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, dizziness and numbness. In severe cases, people may even have difficulties in breathing, blurred vision and convulsion. Prolonged excessive intakes of pesticide residues have been shown to cause damage to the nervous system or other organs such as liver and kidneys, as well as affect foetal development in animals.
Quote:
Who says there are? Autism has always been around. At one point it was classified under schizophrenia. Many people with it were just termed "mentally retarded".
Since you value CDC opinion so much here what they have to say on the matter:
It's also increasingly clear that genetics can't tell the whole story of autism. A Stanford University study of twins published last year found that genetics accounts for just 38 percent of the risk.
"That analysis suggested that the assumption that this is mostly a genetic condition was perhaps made in error," said Diana Schendel, a scientist with the CDC's National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. "Maybe the environment plays a larger role in autism than we once believed."
You can't just imply that autism is caused by agrochemicals and then just say you were not discussing autism. You brought it up first.
You are putting words in my mouth. In each and every post in no uncertain terms I stated that interplay of the social, environmental and food changes imposed severe penalties on our health and general sense of well-being. I never pointed to "agrochemicals" as the sole root cause. You, on the other hand, absolved chemicals and additives all to be safe, and started this autism message fest.
Agrochemicals (and additives) threaten not only our food, agrochemicals contributed to disintegration of the social fabric of the agricultureal areas, not speaking of messing up environment. More chemicals and additives = larger scale of production = more specialization & greater length of haul = fewer players and "opportunities" = less variety, more brainwashing and uniformity, ultimately less freedom, choices and joy. Economy of the agricultural absurd is really fragile and it takes enormous amount of energy to run it. At some (not so distant) point mouse trap would snap. Hopefully, you (and me) will be dead by that time because it will not be pretty especially for old farts.
Quote:
What does electric wire have to do with the discussion? What philosophy? What a weird deflection.
It looks like you are incapable of processing analogies (google it). One more time:
If you see a wire hanging from utility pole on your driveway you would assume that wire is live
If you see a strainger pointing a gun at you you would assume the gun is loaded
If you receive a call saying that you won a trip to Hawai you would assume it's a scam.
It's called precaution and common sense. Two things you claim you don't understand, but you do, since you managed to survive for this long. Yet, we all are invited to believe that concoctions of hundred and thousands of additives and agrochemicals do nothing to our health.
Quote:
You still have not provided a source for this statement.
From now on I don't provide links for the statements of common knowledge and/or the statements that are easy to look up and double check. Links between meat consumption and heart disease are well established, it's as mainstream as it gets.
Quote:
Biology problem again. The average age of menarche is not so low that fertility precedes skeletal maturity.
The average age of menarche is slowly decreasing, the average age of puberty onset is plummeting (especially for girls). And it took just 30+/- years for these trends to set in. If anything, kid' nutrition got worse in those 30 years. There are plenty of 9 and 10 years old "women". Would you claim that skeletal maturity of a 9 years old is sufficient for vaginal birth? What about "social maturity" of a 9 years old, it takes social and survival maturity to raise a kid. I don't see "evolutionary advantage" of a 9 year old dying during a childbirth (that would be an overwhelming outcome without availability of C-sections).
on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
While studies have shown that the average age of breast budding has fallen significantly since the 1970s, the average age of first period, or menarche, has remained fairly constant, dropping to only 12.5 from 12.8 years. Why would puberty be starting earlier yet ending more or less at the same time?
Food additives have been extensively studied. The CDC studies many chemicals. You keep saying no one is doing any studies, then when you are shown that there is an entire section of the CDC that studies it, your comment is "if at all." Get over it. It is being studied.
Do you have an idea about combinatorics? If there are 1500 of food additives and hundreds of agrichemicals, it's virtually impossible (provided honest desire and efforts) to study all the possible interactions and their effects on our health. "Extensively studied" is a meaningless marketing slogan. The simple fact is - available studies didn't even scratch the surface of the problem.
Quote:
Which brings us back to ractopamine and the fact that there is no evidence that it causes harm to humans who eat it in meat.
First, we didn't agree upon definitions of "evidence". Again, it seems you deem safe any chemical that does not cause immediate collapse and convulsions. See, my above remark about combinatorics. You have no ground to claim that "ractopamine" is safe. People get sick and die, there is no way to deduct contributions of ractopamine to that. Common sense and precaution would preclude feeding us with unnecessary chemicals.
It's not a thesis. I believe that message board format allows me to make common knowledge (easy to look up) statements without providing extensive literature reviews. If you don't want to invest 1 second it takes to copy paste "adverse effects from pesticide residues in food" in the search line it shows that you made your mind regardless of the links. If you think that pesticide etc. residues are good for you, you are in luck, there are thousands of choices to select from, bon appetit.
If you were to read the controversial threads in this forum you would come across a common phrase used by the anti crowd:
to make common knowledge (easy to look up) statements
And the responses usually are:
Why don't we see all these negative symptoms/illnesses in the general population, why is it just within the anti crowd do these <pick your anti issue> symptoms show up?
It's only common knowledge in the conspiracy blogs and when a MSN outfit thinks it's sensationalist to make a story out of it.....
Since the dawn of mankind there has been anti somethings in society and they will be around until the end of time....
It's only common knowledge in the conspiracy blogs and when a MSN outfit thinks it's sensationalist to make a story out of it.....
Since the dawn of mankind there has been anti somethings in society and they will be around until the end of time....
As they say:
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER
There are few topics more mainstream and easy to look up than health effects from pesticide residues in food. Nope, there are no good ones for a science believer to savor and indulge. Try your "conspiracy" crutch on something else.
There are few topics more mainstream and easy to look up than health effects from pesticide residues in food. Nope, there are no good ones for a science believer to savor and indulge. Try your "conspiracy" crutch on something else.
Russia's lower parliament appears to be retaliating against a US law that targets Russian officials accused of corruption.
The Duma has already imposed restrictions on US pork and beef imports and is now considering a host of other punitive measures.
A trade bill passed in the US Senate on Friday will deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian officials linked to the death of a Russian whistleblower.
Sergei Magnitsky uncovered evidence of a $230m Russian tax fraud, but himself ended up accused of the crime.
He died in suspicious circumstances in a Moscow jail in 2009.
Russia's lower parliament appears to be retaliating against a US law that targets Russian officials accused of corruption.
The Duma has already imposed restrictions on US pork and beef imports and is now considering a host of other punitive measures.
A trade bill passed in the US Senate on Friday will deny visas and freeze the assets of Russian officials linked to the death of a Russian whistleblower.
Sergei Magnitsky uncovered evidence of a $230m Russian tax fraud, but himself ended up accused of the crime.
He died in suspicious circumstances in a Moscow jail in 2009.
Russian government is not known for taking care of its citizens. But once in a while plebeians inadvertently benefit of the random power/money squabbles of the Russian elites. Let's say for the retaliation sake Russians joined 80 more countries that ban ractopamine. Russians chose ractopamine exactly because there is plenty of research lingo to wrap that retaliation in, so it would appear as something else. Note, Russians didn't pick cotton or metal scrap (they import) to retaliate against, that would be just plain obvious and capricious.
Russian government is not known for taking care of its citizens. But once in a while plebeians inadvertently benefit of the random power/money squabbles of the Russian elites. Let's say for the retaliation sake Russians joined 80 more countries that ban ractopamine. Russians chose ractopamine exactly because there is plenty of research lingo to wrap that retaliation in, so it would appear as something else. Note, Russians didn't pick cotton or metal scrap (they import) to retaliate against, that would be just plain obvious and capricious.
So what you are saying is when the Russians say something you like they are correct and the Americans wrong, but when they say something you disagree with they are wrong...
Russian government is not known for taking care of its citizens. But once in a while plebeians inadvertently benefit of the random power/money squabbles of the Russian elites. Let's say for the retaliation sake Russians joined 80 more countries that ban ractopamine. Russians chose ractopamine exactly because there is plenty of research lingo to wrap that retaliation in, so it would appear as something else. Note, Russians didn't pick cotton or metal scrap (they import) to retaliate against, that would be just plain obvious and capricious.
So you agree that this is retaliation from the Russians?
I suspect that ractopamine was selected in hopes that other countries that are affected by the ban would put pressure on the U.S.
The ban is transparently political and has nothing to do with health.
Wonder if the Russians will be willing to pay more for meat produced without ractopamine?
There are few topics more mainstream and easy to look up than health effects from pesticide residues in food. Nope, there are no good ones for a science believer to savor and indulge. Try your "conspiracy" crutch on something else.
I thought you were of the opinion that these chemicals had not been studied. Have you actually read the books in your links?
Do any of them contain any references to ractopamine?
From the excerpts at Google Books I was unable to find any.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
